Do you believe there is a real "War on Terrorism" (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

I think the 'war on terror' is a legit and necessary evil right now. If the US was not one of their primary targets, I might feel differently about it. More specifically if the Western hate was isolated toward European nations, I would rather us sit back. The fact of the matter is that these extremist will stop at nothing to harm us, and to get their claws onto US soil is their main dream, so just sitting back could one day prove catastrophic. If Clinton would've recognized this and would not have just done nothing when Michael Butler & company was kicked out and if he wouldn't have just stopped after the '98 terrorist camp bombings I firmly believe that we'd be in a better place right. Hindsight says that 911 might not have even happened. Also note that no other major attacks on the US have succeeded since 911, and it's not because the extremist have backed off willingly. It baffels me that more people don't realize this.

They don't want to get their hands on US soil. They don't want to follow us here. They don't want to convert you to Islam.

They would, however, attack us here if they could because they are vengence driven.

They want us out of their lands.

They finished their war against the Russians and when the Russians went home it ended there. They did not follow the Russians home even though they could have quite easily, since they would not need a navy to do so...

 

[Claw]

They don't want to get their hands on US soil. They don't want to follow us here. They don't want to convert you to Islam.

They would, however, attack us here if they could because they are vengence driven.

They want us out of their lands.

They finished their war against the Russians and when the Russians went home it ended there. They did not follow the Russians home even though they could have quite easily, since they would not need a navy to do so...

After reading your post, I realize that I did not make myself clear. I in no way meant that they wanted to convert us or follow us here. I specifically meant that they would love to attack us here with the "get their claws over here" comment.

Blackadder, I would like to hear your thoughts on the Michael Butler situation though. I have always respected your post/opinions and I think that I benefit from hearing your side of things, even though I disagree with you more often than not.

 

[blackadder]

After reading your post, I realize that I did not make myself clear. I in no way meant that they wanted to convert us or follow us here. I specifically meant that they would love to attack us here with the "get their claws over here" comment.

Blackadder, I would like to hear your thoughts on the Michael Butler situation though. I have always respected your post/opinions and I think that I benefit from hearing your side of things, even though I disagree with you more often than not.

I'm not much of a fan of Bill Clinton. I'm down on both parties really. Two shades of the same color...

You will have to tell me more about Michael Butler. Don't know the name. Is he related to the incident when the FBI was kicked out of Yemen when trying to investigate the USS Cole bombing?

As for Clinton in general, the fact that he ordered strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan at all indicates to me that he had some sense of the reality of the threat. But I suspect that after we hit nothing in Afghanistan and then bombed a pharmaceutical factory in a poor country that was shown to have no real connection to terrorism, he got gun shy.

He had a poor relationship with the Pentagon to start with. Putting myself in his shoes, I'd start to question the quality of the intel and the sense it would make to order attacks based on it when the likelihood of collateral damage and frayed relationships with other countries would result without actually hitting the intended target.

I do believe that there are claims made than there were subsequent opportunities where the chance to get Bin Laden or his lieutenants had a very high probablity of success but Clinton demurred. As usual, these are things we can't confirm for decades until the relevant documents are de-classified.

Whatever Clinton's failures, the Bush administration clearly did not have this on its radar either when it came into office. Bush was already thinking about going into Iraq, not getting Bin Laden...the FBI leadership in DC actually hampered ongoing investigations in field offices that were on the trail of the 9/11 hijackers and also warned agents off of pursuing leads that pionted to the Bin Laden family.

So, I think we are better off to deal with the fact dirty politics and bureacracy had a role to play in both administrations. Niether one is clearly to blame, both failed on some level and the failures, in my mind, are directly related to the deluded and self contradictory policies we pursue in the Middle East out of political expediency and deference to special interests.

 

[lapaz]

What's more, the links to Al Queda didn't start during the Clinton adminstration, so you can't just point to him as the failure. I think Black Adder makes a good point about the quality of the actionable intel. I'd say we had it prior to 911, but neither Bush acted on it either. It took the catastrophy of 911 to summon the political clout to act against Al Queda.

 

[St. PJ]

When our "secret" war on terrorism is being broadcast live on CNN, when we give the terrorist we are after a 3 month head start when intelligence knows exactly what country he was in on September 11, and when we deliberately target and attack someone who we knew had nothing to do with the terrorism here in the USA, How can the "war on terror" be anything more than a propaganda machine? This is like the war on drugs.

You want a real war worth fighting? How about a war on poverty here in this country? Or a war on corporations and legislators who are putting every mom and pop out of business and selling our retirements out from underneat us? Or a war on congress for every tax law passed in the last 4 decades and spending the one thing that wasn't supposed to be touched with SS? Or a war on privatized healthcare and all insurance companies? Lets fight one of those. Give me a politician making that happen, and you will see another assination. Give me a people demanding thieir country back, and you will see a much needed revolution. If we lived on the principles we were founded, we would have a much less threat from terrorist abroad. We can start by focusing on the terrorist in our own country posing as presidents and congressmen. Can you imagine living in Iraq and having your house, family, and every structure not oilfield related blown up? If it were me, I would be very ****** at the USA for trying to liberate me and damn sure would not want any more "favors" done. We are creating more terrorist each day.

 

[Three Monkeys]

"A third of adults in the United States believe Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11, according to a poll by CBS News. 33 per cent of respondents think the deposed Iraqi leader was personally involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

Special Iraq Report: Saddam Hussein and 9/11: Angus Reid Global Monitor

This is from September 12, 2007. And the numbers actually went up from February 2006.

All but one of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a moderate Sunni; Al Qaeda is extremist Sunni. To the best of our knowledge, Bin Laden is in Pakistan (if he's not dead).

It would just be a lot easier if people said we screwed up when we went into Iraq for no reason.

 

[LSSpam]

Al Qaeda is Shia.

Al Qaeda is not Shia, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Three Monkeys]

Al Qaeda is not Shia, by any stretch of the imagination.

Sorry. It seems like such a long time that the whole Saddam/Al Qaeda/Sunni Muslim/Shia Muslim has been and it confused me from the git-go.

If I remember correctly, it went this way:
Saddam = moderate Sunni who hates Shia.
Shia = extreme Muslims who hate Sunni in general.
Al Qaeda = more extreme Sunni Muslims who seem to hate everybody?

 

[dapperdan]

You want a real war worth fighting? How about a war on poverty here in this country?

The War On Poverty was begun over 40 years ago.

"The War on Poverty is the name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to the difficult economic conditions associated with a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The War on Poverty speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, a law that established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administrate the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.[1]"

War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dapperdan]

Or a war on corporations and legislators who are putting every mom and pop out of business and selling our retirements out from underneat us?

Hopefully you don't mean Starbucks. I love my Grande Mocha from time to time. Starbucks is off limits in this war on corporations...

Also, Costco is off limits. I like strolling the massive aisles at my local Costco stores, actually there are two of them relatively close to me. Plus they've got great gas prices. So, Costco is off the list of corporations to go to war against as well...

Walmart, I could care less, they're down in Renton. It's a long drive for me to go to Renton. Plus, if I'm heading down to Renton, and I'm going to actually stop in a store in that area to do some browsing, it's going to be Fry's Electronics, not Walmart. No reason for me to go to Walmart. So, wail away Walmart; have at it...

McDonalds, no,I've got to say McDonald's is off limits, no going to war against McDonalds, I like an occasional Big Mac, even though they're not very healthy...

I'll have to give this some more thought, the big corporations who should be politically correct to go to war against and which ones are not correct to go to war against...

What about a company like Radio Shack, they're a national corporation, but they're sort of a mom and pop store. Radio Shack, I'm on the fence whether we should go to war against Radio Shack, that's a toughie.

 

[dapperdan]

Or a war on congress for every tax law passed in the last 4 decades and spending the one thing that wasn't supposed to be touched with SS?

Yeah, maybe we shouldn't have made Social Security tax revenues available in the general fund. Whoever voted in favor of that idea should be flogged. Who was responsible for that anyway?...Also, whoever decided to vote down extending the initial eligibility age for social securtiy should be flogged as well. Since our life expectancy has extended since SS was enacted, extending the initial eligibility should be extended proportionally.

 

[dapperdan]

Or a war on privatized healthcare and all insurance companies?

Spoken like a man who lives far, far away from the Canadian border.

 

[St. PJ]

Hopefully you don't mean Starbucks. I love my Grande Mocha from time to time. Starbucks is off limits in this war on corporations...

Also, Costco is off limits. I like strolling the massive aisles at my local Costco stores, actually there are two of them relatively close to me. Plus they've got great gas prices. So, Costco is off the list of corporations to go to war against as well...

Walmart, I could care less, they're down in Renton. It's a long drive for me to go to Renton. Plus, if I'm heading down to Renton, and I'm going to actually stop in a store in that area to do some browsing, it's going to be Fry's Electronics, not Walmart. No reason for me to go to Walmart. So, wail away Walmart; have at it...

McDonalds, no,I've got to say McDonald's is off limits, no going to war against McDonalds, I like an occasional Big Mac, even though they're not very healthy...

I'll have to give this some more thought, the big corporations who should be politically correct to go to war against and which ones are not correct to go to war against...

What about a company like Radio Shack, they're a national corporation, but they're sort of a mom and pop store. Radio Shack, I'm on the fence whether we should go to war against Radio Shack, that's a toughie.

Are you kidding me?? McDonalds taste terrible, they are at the top of the list. The only burger that taste like real food is the Chicken Club. Their beef patties (I hope its beef) have no taste. They could at least sprinkle some beef flavor or salt or something. At least Burger King has a flame broiled flavor. I really don't understand how McDonalds stays in business. Their food is real garbage.

Radio Shack gets a pass. They were like WalMart 20 years ago. They didn't become Best Buy like WalMart became SuperWalMart. They aren't that greedy. When Walton died, WalMart was worth 22billion. His kids decided to open up all these Super Wal Marts with grocery and gas and everything in between. That is like playing monopoly when you consider their selling power and ability to go cheaper. They are definately at the top of the list. Piggly Wiggly is off the list, being that they were the first supermarket ever and they still have very reasonable prices and stick to selling mostly groceries.

 

[St. PJ]

The War On Poverty was begun over 40 years ago.

"The War on Poverty is the name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to the difficult economic conditions associated with a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The War on Poverty speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, a law that established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administrate the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.[1]"

War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I sit corrected. Thanks for the link as well. I still hate/strongly dislike LBJerkoff.